Wildlife management: consultation analysis

3. Muirburn

Muirburn is the burning of vegetation in moorland areas, usually in a controlled manner, in order to promote growth and maintain open moorland. It is a tool used traditionally by land managers in Scotland to improve grazing, provide food and shelter for red grouse and other gamebirds, reduce the risk of wildfires and for selected conservation objectives for habitats and species. The muirburn season runs from 1 October to 15 April inclusive in Scotland, but this can be extended to 30 April at the landowner's discretion.

Research suggests that muirburn can have both beneficial and adverse effects. If it is undertaken without due consideration of all the possible consequences, it has the potential to have a serious negative impact on wildlife, soil quality, carbon sequestration, and the wider environment. However, it can also bring positive benefits in some cases, for example by helping to reduce fuel loads and thereby reducing the risk of wildfires.

The impacts of burning on carbon release and sequestration on moorland are disputed and there is conflicting scientific evidence. However, given the importance of peatland to Scotland's net zero target, the Scottish Government takes the view that a precautionary approach is required until there is more consensus on the impacts of muirburn.

Question 17 – Currently a licence is only required to undertake muirburn outwith the muirburn season. Do you agree that a licence should be required to undertake muirburn regardless of the time of year that it is undertaken?

Responses to Question 17 by respondent type are set out in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Question 17

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	11	1	0	12
Conservation, including representative bodies	22	1	0	23
Land management, including representative bodies	10	29	2	41
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	0	5	6
Public body, including law enforcement	5	0	1	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	6	0	6
Other - private sector	1	11	1	13
Other - non private sector	8	0	0	8
Total organisations	58	48	9	115
% of organisations	50%	42%	8%
Individuals	3211	1377	73	4661
% of individuals	69%	30%	2%
All respondents	3269	1425	82	4776
% of all respondents	68%	30%	2%

Please note that some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority – 68% of those who answered the question – agreed that a licence should be required to undertake muirburn regardless of the time of year that it is undertaken. Of the remaining respondents, 30% disagreed and 2% were unsure.

Organisational respondents were more evenly divided, with 50% of those who answered the question in agreement, while 42% disagreed and 8% were unsure. A clear majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation', 'Public body' and 'Other – non private sector' respondents agreed, while a majority of 'Land management', 'Sporting organisations', and 'Other – private sector' respondents disagreed, and the majority of 'Pest control' respondents were unsure.

Question 18 – If you answered 'No' to Question 17, please outline why you believe this.

Around 1,380 respondents provided a comment at Question 18.

The issues raised most frequently by respondents who disagreed with licensing were the role of muirburn as a vital land management tool, its benefits for mitigation of wildfires, and its positive impacts on biodiversity, including in mosaic habitat creation. One respondent quoted extensively from the recent NatureScot research report Reviewing, assessing and critiquing the evidence base on the impacts of muirburn on wildfire prevention, carbon storage and biodiversity to illustrate their arguments on these points. Concerns were expressed that introduction of a muirburn licensing system will have negative effects on both biodiversity and wildfire mitigation.

A much smaller proportion of respondents who answered 'No' at Question 17 did so because they wished to see a ban on muirburn rather than an extension of licensing arrangements.

Muirburn and biodiversity

Some respondents cited evidence that muirburn can have positive impacts for bird species other than red grouse with curlew, golden plover, merlin, whinchat, black grouse and lesser redpoll all referenced. The range of habitat and variety of ground cover created by muirburn, and the control of predation on managed grouse moors were considered beneficial for other ground nesting birds. With respect to plant species, it was argued that there is evidence to suggest that, depending on burning rotations, muirburn either has no adverse impact or can be beneficial for sphagnum moss species associated with peat formation. Deer, sheep and hares were also referenced as benefiting from the new growth promoted by muirburn.

Muirburn and wildfire mitigation

An important role for muirburn in reducing both the risk and intensity of wildfires was also cited by respondents with some quoting the NatureScot review as recognising 'a plausible mechanism' through which muirburn can influence wildfire intensity via structural alterations to fuel load. It was also reported that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) recognise the importance of muirburn in preventing, reducing and tackling wildfires.

Some respondents referenced the increasing risk of wildfires as a result of climate change and drier summers, with factors including increased public access and plans for increased tree planting also seen as contributing to elevated risk.

Risk of damage to peat

Respondents also argued that, while properly executed muirburn does not damage underlying peat, uncontrolled wildfires are likely to do so, and SFRS were reported to have found little evidence to suggest damage to peatland by correctly performed cool burn techniques. It was argued that sub-surface temperatures remain low during muirburn, meaning that the underlying peat is not damaged or burned and that, since the primary purpose is typically to reinvigorate vegetation, burning underlying soil and killing vegetation would defeat the purpose of the exercise.

Limiting muirburn to a season when the weather is cold and wet was also observed to reduce the risk that peat catches fire during muirburn.

Impact on carbon sequestration

There were relatively few comments specifically on the impact of muirburn on carbon sequestration, although it was argued that it may prove beneficial and it was noted that the NatureScot review recorded findings that charcoal created during muirburn can function as a carbon sink. In addition, recently published, long-term research not included in the NatureScot review^[4] was reported to have found that, although there was a short-term carbon loss over 3-5 years after muirburn, analysis over 10 years showed that the burnt areas rapidly recovered to show the greatest net carbon gain, while unmanaged areas showed a continuing slow decline in their ability to lock up carbon.

Evidence base to support licensing

There was also a view that the proposals with respect to muirburn are not evidence-based, with numerous gaps in knowledge about the impacts of muirburn. It was argued that, in the absence of evidence that muirburn is having a net negative effect, it would be better to focus resources on long-term scientific research to support evidence-based policymaking.

Unnecessary regulation

Some respondents saw the proposed licence for muirburn as unnecessary regulation, adding to paperwork and administrative costs for estates. In addition, two respondents who provide muirburn equipment suggested licensing could harm their businesses.

It was also argued that muirburn is a longstanding practice that is already adequately regulated under the Muirburn Code. Respondents highlighted:

• The levels of skill and experience among those who practice muirburn on grouse moors. For example, it was noted that gamekeepers have provided SFRS with training on how to control moorland fires, and one respondent reported that their head keeper, responsible for running muirburn, is a member of the fire brigade.
• That burning is only carried out during the season when environmental impacts are lowest, and when conditions are safe to do so.
• That muirburn techniques are evolving.

Characteristics of a licensing system

If muirburn is licenced, it was argued that a proportionate approach would be to licence individual practitioners on successful completion of prescribed training. It was noted that such training has already been developed by the SFRS, SGA and NatureScot, and it was suggested that such training could be part of Continuing Professional Development. It was also thought that such an approach could easily be implemented in a consistent manner, incentivising responsible behaviour, and following recommendations in the Werritty Report in respect of training and fire safety.

In contrast it was suggested that landowners do not generally have any involvement in starting or managing muirburn and, as they do not control this decision-making, it would be unfair for them to suffer land-based penalties. It was noted that the Hill Farming Act 1946 places liability for offences on the person making muirburn.

Issues relating to crofting and farming

A small number of respondents, including some who agreed with muirburn licences and some who did not, raised issues relating to burning of vegetation by crofters and farmers.

It was suggested that the licensing system being proposed would have a broader effect than limiting muirburn, extending to any use of fire to control vegetation, apart from stubble burning. Potential implications for crofters in particular were noted – for example, that many crofters rely on burning for the health and wellbeing of their animals. However, it was observed that the Werritty Report does not mention crofting, and there was a concern that measures are being designed without proper consideration for the crofting community.

It was argued that:

• Licensing requirements could be challenging for some older crofters or could put people off crofting.
• Use of fire at very small scale should continue as a land management tool without a requirement for a muirburn licence.
• Any licensing requirements should be proportionate to risk, and specific training should target the small-scale crofting context.

There was also a view that some crofters lack appropriate knowledge and training with respect to muirburn and may be harming the reputation of gamekeepers.

Alternative views

A small number of respondents who had not answered 'No' at Question 17 made points explaining their views, with the most frequent position being that muirburn should be banned altogether. Others made points in support of licensing, including that it could:

• Ensure greater control over muirburn and provide an opportunity to collect information on its impacts.
• Ensure best practice in muirburn, subject to provision of suitable, accessible training and awareness raising.

With respect to circumstances where respondents thought licences should be granted, comments included that this should be only under exceptional circumstances, for example where there would otherwise be a very high risk of wildfires, or that it should not be for sporting purposes.

Question 19 – If we introduce a licensing scheme, do you agree that NatureScot should be the licensing authority?

Responses to Question 19 by respondent type are set out in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Question 19

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	10	0	1	11
Conservation, including representative bodies	21	0	1	22
Land management, including representative bodies	31	1	7	39
Pest control, including representative bodies	2	0	4	6
Public body, including law enforcement	6	0	0	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	6	0	0	6
Other - private sector	11	2	0	13
Other - non private sector	8	0	0	8
Total organisations	95	3	13	111
% of organisations	86%	3%	12%
Individuals	3652	482	505	4639
% of individuals	79%	10%	11%
All respondents	3747	485	518	4750
% of all respondents	79%	10%	11%

Please note that some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority – 79% of those who answered the question – agreed that if muirburn licensing is introduced, NatureScot should be the licensing authority. Of the remaining respondents, 10% disagreed and 11% were unsure.

Among organisational respondents a larger majority – 86% – agreed that NatureScot should be the licensing authority, while only 3% disagreed and 16% were unsure. A clear majority of all organisational respondent groups were in agreement, with the exception of 'Pest control' respondents, where the majority were unsure.

Alternative licensing authorities

Respondents were also given the opportunity to suggest bodies other than NatureScot that might act as a licensing authority if a muirburn licensing scheme were to be introduced. Answers given at Question 21 closely reflected those at Question 7, with many respondents making exactly the same remarks.

Around 440 respondents made a comment, with some respondents who thought there should be no muirburn licensing scheme seeing no requirement for any licensing authority. Among other respondents, the most frequent suggestion was that an existing organisation with an interest in field sports should be the licensing authority – with the GWCT, BASC and SGA all proposed.

Other frequently made suggestions were that Police Scotland, or a wildlife/animal welfare NGO such as the RSPB or SSPCA could be the licensing authority. Less frequent suggestions included: the Scottish Government, Local or regional authorities, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).

General characteristics of any licensing body

On a more generic level, some respondents argued that the licensing body should be independent or impartial. In some instances this was associated with being impervious to political pressures although also, less frequently, as being independent of influence by shooting interests.

There were also calls for a new body to be set up, or for any licensing body to have a range of stakeholder representation including NatureScot, shooting organisations, landowners, and environmental groups.

Some respondents expressed a view that, whatever the licensing authority, it must be adequately resourced and have appropriate powers.

NatureScot as the licensing authority

Specifically with respect to NatureScot, there were views that the organisation does not have the resources to administer an extended muirburn licensing scheme, or that it would require additional resources to do so.

Some respondents explained other reservations about NatureScot as the licensing authority, including both a lack of confidence that they would take an even-handed approach, and with respect to what was seen as an insufficiently robust approach in some areas. Potential conflicts with other aspects of NatureScot's relationship with landowners/managers were also suggested.

Other points made with respect to NatureScot as the licensing authority included that this would provide consistency with the current licensing regime, although there was also a request that the Cairngorm National Park Authority should be a statutory consultee on muirburn licensing in the National Park to ensure alignment with the National Park Partnership Plan.

Question 20 – Do you agree that there should be a ban on muirburn on peatland unless it is done under licence as part of a habitat restoration programme approved by NatureScot?

Responses to Question 20 by respondent type are set out in Table 12 below.

Table 12: Question 20

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	11	1	0	12
Conservation, including representative bodies	20	1	0	21
Land management, including representative bodies	9	29	3	41
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	0	5	6
Public body, including law enforcement	2	1	3	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	6	0	6
Other - private sector	2	11	0	13
Other - non private sector	7	0	1	8
Total organisations	52	49	12	113
% of organisations	46%	43%	11%
Individuals	3232	1333	69	4634
% of individuals	70%	29%	1%
All respondents	3284	1382	81	4747
% of all respondents	69%	29%	2%

A majority – 69% of those who answered the question – agreed that there should be a ban on muirburn on peatland unless it is done under licence as part of a habitat restoration programme approved by NatureScot. Of the remaining respondents, 29% disagreed and 2% were unsure.

Organisational respondents were more evenly divided, with 46% of those who answered the question in agreement, while 43% disagreed and 11% were unsure. A clear majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation' and 'Other – non private sector' respondents agreed, while a majority of 'Land management', 'Sporting organisations', and 'Other – private sector' respondents disagreed, and the majority of 'Pest control' respondents were unsure.

Question 21 – Other than for habitat restoration, public safety (e.g. fire prevention), and research, are there any other purposes for which you think muirburn on peatland should be permitted?

Responses to Question 21 by respondent type are set out in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Question 21

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	2	10	0	12
Conservation, including representative bodies	2	21	0	23
Land management, including representative bodies	24	10	7	41
Pest control, including representative bodies	0	0	5	5
Public body, including law enforcement	2	1	3	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	6	0	0	6
Other - private sector	11	2	0	13
Other - non private sector	0	6	2	8
Total organisations	47	50	17	114
% of organisations	41%	44%	15%	100%
Individuals	1336	2996	298	4630
% of individuals	29%	65%	6%	100%
All respondents	1383	3046	315	4744
% of all respondents	29%	64%	7%	100%

A majority – 64% of those who answered the question – did not think that there are additional purposes (other than for habitat restoration, public safety (e.g. fire prevention), and research) for which muirburn on peatland should be permitted. Of the remaining respondents, 29% thought that there are such purposes, and 7% were unsure.

Organisational respondents were more evenly divided, with 44% of those who answered the question not seeing any other reasons to permit muirburn, while 41% did think there were additional reasons and 15% were unsure. A majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation' and 'Other – non private sector' respondents did not think there were additional reasons to permit muirburn, while a majority of 'Land management', 'Sporting organisations', and 'Other – private sector' respondents thought there were reasons, and all 'Pest control' respondents were unsure.

Question 22 – Do you agree that the definition of peat set out in the Muirburn Code should be amended to 40cm?

Responses to Question 21 by respondent type are set out in Table 14 below.

Table 14: Question 22

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	4	7	1	12
Conservation, including representative bodies	6	16	0	22
Land management, including representative bodies	6	29	6	41
Pest control, including representative bodies	0	1	5	6
Public body, including law enforcement	0	2	4	6
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	6	0	6
Other - private sector	0	10	3	13
Other - non private sector	2	4	1	7
Total organisations	18	75	20	113
% of organisations	16%	66%	18%
Individuals	1777	2031	827	4635
% of individuals	38%	44%	18%
All respondents	1795	2106	847	4748
% of all respondents	38%	44%	18%

The most common view – expressed by 44% of those who answered the question – was that the definition of peat set out in the Muirburn Code should not be amended to 40cm. Of the remaining respondents, 38% thought that the definition should be 40cm and 18% were unsure.

Among organisations a majority – 66% of those who answered the question – did not agree with a definition of 40cm, while 16% did agree and 18% were unsure. No respondent groups showed a majority in favour of the proposed definition.

Question 23 – If you answered 'No' to Question 22, please outline why you believe this.

Around 2,100 respondents provided a comment at Question 23.

Answers at Question 23 revealed that respondents who had disagreed at Question 22 did so for very different reasons – including both that there should be no change to the existing definition of 50cm and that, rather than 40cm, the amended definition should instead be 30cm or less. There were also calls for a complete ban on muirburn (including both calls for a ban on muirburn in general and, more specifically, for a ban on muirburn on peat).

Among the small number of respondents who answered 'Yes', 'Unsure' or did not answer Question 22 but commented at Question 23, over a third indicated that they would, in fact, prefer a definition of 30cm, less than 30cm, or a ban on muirburn.

The analysis below is therefore structured on a thematic basis, rather than according to answers at the closed question. It should be noted that, while few of the respondents who commented at Question 23 supported the proposed definition of 40cm, many of the respondents who answered 'Yes' at the closed question and made no further comment may have done so.

One point of agreement for some respondents who otherwise had divergent views, was that it is important that peat is protected. However, they disagreed on how this should be achieved, with some seeing muirburn as a means of protecting peat, while others viewed muirburn as damaging or destroying it.

Support for retaining the current definition

Lack of evidence of harm

Some respondents simply noted they saw no reason to change the current definition of 50cm. Others argued that:

• There is no evidence that muirburn carried out correctly affects underlying peat. Depth-based restrictions are logical for activities such tree planting where the impact on underlying peat is clear, but not to above ground activities such as cool muirburn where underlying peat is not disturbed.
• NatureScot found a 'lack of evidence to determine the impacts of muirburn on different depths of peat', and no evidence has been presented to support introduction of a lower, 40cm threshold.
• Any change in definition should be informed by scientific evidence and that, in the absence of such evidence, the choice of 40cm is arbitrary or represents an inappropriate application of the precautionary principle.

Risk of increasing wildfires

In contrast, it was argued muirburn can help to reduce the risk and severity of wildfires that do damage peat. NatureScot's recognition that muirburn may influence the intensity of wildfires via alterations to fuel load structure was seen as providing a reason to ensure that muirburn can take place where needed to manage the fuel load, irrespective of peat depth.

A 'Public body' expressed a view that muirburn should considered a useful tool for reducing vegetation load and reducing incidence and intensity of wildfire over all soil types, regardless of depth. They noted that reducing the peat depth from 50cm to 40cm will create more areas where muirburn cannot be used.

Impacts of the change to a 40cm peat depth threshold in England were also referenced, with a suggestion that Scotland should learn from resulting fuel load build up.

Practical difficulties in measuring peat depth

Some respondents argued that peat depth alone should not be used to determine where burning can take place. It was noted that, even in a relatively small area, peat depth can vary substantially and that this could create major practical problems for land managers seeking to comply with new requirements. NatureScot's advice that the only practical approach to measuring peat depth is by using a probe was seen as too time consuming, costly and environmentally damaging, and as failing to give a muirburn practitioner confidence that they will not inadvertently break the law. How observance of a 40cm peat depth limit for muirburn could be monitored or enforced was also queried.

Lack of impact assessment

It was argued that there has been no assessment of how much moorland would be affected by a 40cm depth based muirburn ban, how many holdings/businesses would be affected by reduced muirburn, or what that financial impact would be.

Support for a definition of 40cm

As noted above, the way the question is phrased means comments in support of the proposed 40cm threshold were limited. A small number of respondents highlighted the benefits of consistency with the 40cm definition of peat used in England and Wales.

However, it was also argued that consistency with the English definition should not be a justification for the proposed change and it was noted that, in England, the ban on prescribed burning is '40cm and on a protected site', so the proposal for Scotland is potentially more restrictive.

Support for setting a limit at less than 40cm

Some respondents argued that the Scottish Government should amend the definition to less than 40cm peat depth, with the most frequent suggestions being either 30cm or a complete ban on muirburn. A small number of respondents commented specifically on the extent or vulnerability of shallow peat in Scotland.

It was also argued that the proposed 40cm threshold would not fully implement the Climate Change Committee's recommendation to the Scottish Government that burning must be ended on all peatlands and these habitats fully restored if the UK is going to achieve its ambition to achieve net-zero.

Support for 30cm

Points in support of amending the definition of peat in the Muirburn Code to 30cm included that this would:

• Send a signal that the Scottish Government is serious about protecting peat from burning.
• Increase environmental protection for a greater area, with a number of references to the importance of peat as a carbon store or to minimising the risk of carbon dioxide loss.
• Be in line with the definition accepted in the scientific literature and by most ecologists, or with a growing international consensus that peatland is 'a wetland soil composed largely of semi-decomposed organic matter deposited in-situ, having a minimum organic content of 30% and a thickness greater than 30cm'.

It was also reported that a 30cm definition is in use elsewhere – for example with respect to forestry planting in England.

Support for less than 30cm

While some respondents called for the definition to be 20cm peat depth or less, others argued that any muirburn on peat is unjustifiable, or called for muirburn to be banned. More specifically, some respondents argued that muirburn to support grouse shooting should not be permitted.

It was also noted that Scottish Forestry does not accept forestry grant scheme applications which include ploughing on soils where peat depth exceeds 10cm.

One suggestion was that it might be appropriate to vary peat depth according to location, since peat at high altitude may take longer to regenerate after burning.

Clarity and consistency

As noted above, some respondents referenced peat depths used in other contexts to support their argument with respect to any definition used in respect of muirburn.

It was also noted that both that England and Wales use a 40cm definition of peat, and it was suggested that, for consistency and to avoid confusion it would be best if all land management sectors adopted the same standard.

Alternatives

Mapping

Some respondents who highlighted practical difficulties in using peat depth to determine whether muirburn is acceptable suggested scope for use of ecological constraints maps to help in decision making, with muirburn maps (commissioned and/or approved by NatureScot) seen as a possible alternative. It was reported that environmental constraints mapping, recording muirburn sites and monitoring for adaptive management are already happening on many upland estates.

It was also reported that the Cairngorms National Park Authority has proposed use of a constraints map, agreed with the licensing authority.

Potential constraints that might be identified in such mapping are discussed further at Question 24.

Cutting

A small number of respondents suggested that cutting or flailing vegetation could be good alternatives to using muirburn and it was reported that the RSPB cuts heather on peatland reserves.

However, it was also argued that regrowth after cutting is slower than regeneration following muirburn, that scope for cutting is limited by terrain and ground conditions, and that it creates greater ground disturbance.

Ban deliberate or reckless burning of peat of any depth

Finally, it was suggested that, if looking to protect the carbon locked up in peatlands, the Scottish Government should amend the Hill Farming Act 1946 to ban the deliberate or reckless burning of peat of any depth through muirburn, which is not currently illegal.

Question 24 – Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Around 1,710 respondents provided a comment at Question 24.

Many comments reiterated points made at Questions 18 and 23 and issues already addressed at these questions are referenced only briefly in the analysis below.

Differing views on the impacts of muirburn

No further restrictions are necessary

Respondents who disagreed with further restrictions on muirburn often referenced wildfire prevention or biodiversity improvements and the creation of mosaic habitats as reasons that muirburn should be seen as a positive land management practice, that is used beyond sporting estates, for example to provide improved livestock grazing. Lack of clear evidence of harm or lack of evidence on impacts of muirburn on differing peat depths were also referenced, with views that more research is needed before changes are implemented, and that the existing Muirburn Code is sufficient to allow practitioners to carry out muirburn in safe manner. Some respondents also highlighted:

• The skill set, experience and local knowledge of these muirburn practitioners.
• The very small proportion of wildfires attributed to loss of control of muirburn.
• The major contribution that Estates, farmers and gamekeepers make to fire-fighting efforts when wildfires do start, and a risk that restriction of muirburn may result in loss of local expertise and equipment that is currently taken for granted when combating wildfires in remote areas.

Rather than setting prescriptive rules that apply across the board, it was argued that an informed, trained professional should be permitted to evaluate risk versus benefit of a particular situation based on their professional experience.

The economic importance of driven grouse shooting and, by extension, muirburn to Scotland's rural economy was also highlighted and a small number of respondents expressed concerns for their own businesses if muirburn is restricted.

While many expressed a view that muirburn licensing is unnecessary, it was also argued that, if introduced, a licensing scheme should be based on operator licences or should make it easy to do right thing. Specifically, it was suggested that there should be industry-led, tailored, affordable, local provision with respect to any training requirements, and that any scheme should be reviewed to assess its effectiveness.

Muirburn should be subject to greater control

In contrast, among respondents who thought that muirburn should be subject to greater control, arguments included that it can or does:

• Harm wildlife and/or reduce biodiversity.
• Damage peat and its capacity for carbon storage. The importance of protecting carbon stored in peat was emphasised in the context of the climate emergency.
• Create atmospheric pollution and add to greenhouse gases during burning of above ground vegetation, with a suggestion that an estimate of carbon emitted by a burn should be submitted as part of any licence application.
• Prevent natural regeneration of vegetation.
• Limit a natural transition from heather moorland to scrub and woodland that would improve biodiversity and carbon sequestration potential.
• Create run-off that can pollute watercourses.
• Lead to mineral loss and reduced soil fertility in upland areas.
• Reduce the ability of upland areas to hold water after rainfall, exacerbating flooding.
• Have negative visual impact on the landscape.
• Deter predators from an area.
• Lead to serious wildfires.

On the last point, it was argued that SFRS data indicates that prescribed muirburn that gets out of control is one of the main causes of wildfires and that NatureScot's recent review concluded that there is evidence that muirburn directly causes a proportion of wildfires that occur on moorland.

Grazing or cutting vegetation were seen as better alternatives to generate variable age structure in heather, although there was also concern that, in the long term, cutting is not sustainable for peatland conservation since excessive removal of vegetation leaves peatland exposed to the elements and susceptible to erosion.

In terms of wildlife communities and organisms that may be harmed by muirburn, examples included:

• Soil micro-organisms.
• Invertebrates, including aquatic species.
• Ground nesting birds that begin nesting early in the year.
• Reptiles such as adder, slow worm and lizards.
• Mammals including female otters in natal holts.
• Raptor species whose breeding attempts are disturbed.

Also with respect to animal welfare, it was noted that individuals that survive the fire may be forced from an area, causing displacement and separation of social groups.

Comments on the effectiveness of the current Muirburn Code included one 'Conservation' organisation reporting their own experience that its requirements are widely ignored. They noted that they have documented and reported multiple breaches of the code, including destruction of active bird nests (including Schedule 1 species) and fires causing damage to woodland and damage to screes on steep slopes. A 'Public body' noted their awareness of the risk of criminality relating to muirburn, particularly with respect to burning out of season and burning in close proximity to protected birds and their nests.

Some individual respondents reported personal experiences of muirburn in their local area, including concerns with respect to visual impact and air quality, and reports of seeing burning (or evidence of burning) that is not in accordance with the Muirburn Code.

In addition to those respondents arguing in favour of greater control over muirburn, some sought a complete ban on the practice. A frequently made point, including by many individual respondents was that muirburn licences should never be given for the purpose of grouse shooting. A connected point made by some of these respondents was that muirburn is often carried out in remote areas that are difficult to police.

Differing views on a precautionary approach

Views on why the proposed approach is inappropriate

As noted previously, some respondents who disagreed with further restrictions argued that the Scottish Government's proposed approach is not consistent with application of the precautionary principle, including because adverse impacts of muirburn on different depths of peat have not been identified. The impacts of climate change and resulting increase in wildfire risk were seen as reasons to continue muirburn as a land management practice and examples of wildfires elsewhere seen as resulting from lack of managed burning were given.

Related views included that the correct precautionary approach should instead involve:

• Use of muirburn to protect against wildfires.
• Drawing on the local knowledge of experienced muirburn practitioners who are intimately connected to the land.
• Mandatory training with enhanced fire planning.

Support for the proposed approach

However, other respondents supported the Scottish Government's proposals for adopting a precautionary approach to muirburn, with some advocating a licensing scheme, coupled with muirburn plans and constraint mapping of areas that should not be burned. As a general point on the effectiveness of a muirburn season in controlling risk, it was suggested that increasingly variable weather patterns mean that the season is a less reliable indicator of risk, and that applying a precautionary principle would provide an argument for a licence to be required at all times.

Some respondents who favoured greater control of muirburn commented on the argument that muirburn helps to prevent wildfires, with suggestions that:

• Muirburn can cause wildfires.
• The risk of extreme fires due to lack of removal of fuel load is low compared to the instance of muirburn causing serious fires.
• A wildfire that started on a grouse moor was slowed by rewetted peatland on neighbouring RSPB reserve.

Also in the context of wildfire risk it was argued that:

• Some estate management deliberately creates drier conditions that increase fire load.
• Decisions on muirburn affect much more than the landowner and so should be subject to scrutiny through public consultation and licensing.

If fire prevention is permitted as a reason for muirburn on peatland, it was argued that relevant licence applications should be interrogated to ensure both that there is genuine cause for concern, and that other alternatives have been explored.

In addition, it was argued that rewetting peatland is more effective than muirburn with respect to reducing fire risk, a position reported to be in-line with the view of the IUCN UK Peatland Programme that the best management for peatlands is to re-wet and restore them, not to burn them. It was noted that there is some evidence that muirburn allows the top layer of peat to dry out, becoming hydrophobic and potentially reducing the functionality of the whole peat column.

There was also a view that it is not logical for the Scottish Government to provide funding to support peatland restoration while still allowing burning of peat to take place.

While acknowledging that evidence on muirburn is contested, there was a view that a precautionary approach requires that action is taken now rather than awaiting further research.

Constraint mapping

Some respondents proposed geography, habitats or species that should be protected from muirburn by constraint mapping. Suggestions included:

• Exposed summits and ridges.
• Sites above 300m in the northwest above 600m in the south and east.
• Steep slopes and scree.
• Montane areas and alpine vegetation.
• Patches of tall heather or areas of wind clipped heather.
• Areas of juniper, hawthorn or montane willows.
• Areas adjacent to watercourses, for protection of freshwater ecosystems.
• Peatland or areas of deep peat.
• Blanket bog and wet areas on thick peat.
• Native woodlands and woodland edges.
• Natural regeneration areas.
• Important areas for rare and threatened species.

It was also proposed that constraint maps should be agreed between the landholding and the licensing agency, and should be reviewed at three to five-year intervals, allowing amendments to reflect changes in knowledge of the site, spatial priorities or scientific knowledge. Publication of Estate burning maps so they are available for public scrutiny was also suggested.

Other proposed conditions

Respondents also proposed other conditions that should be imposed on muirburn going forward, including that :

• Burning should be limited to smaller areas and longer rotations.
• A mandatory Certificate of Competence in Fire Operations or similar should be required of all those responsible for muirburn. This must be supported by comprehensive training, and importantly funding provided, to ensure there are no barriers to people becoming properly trained.
• Licensing regulations must be enforced. It was reported that the rarity of prosecutions arising from damaging fires has provided little incentive to adhere to the Muirburn Code.

Points on other closed questions

Some respondents used Question 24 to note their views relating to topics at closed Questions 19 – 21. These are summarised below where not already recorded elsewhere.

If we introduce a licensing scheme, do you agree that NatureScot should be the licensing authority (Question 19)

Comments with respect to NatureScot as the licensing authority included that this would provide consistency with the current licensing regime although there was also a request that the Cairngorm National Park Authority should be a statutory consultee on muirburn licensing in the National Park to ensure alignment with the National Park Partnership Plan.

However, concerns were raised regarding what was considered NatureScot's insufficiently robust approach in some areas, with specific reference to what was seen as a failure to achieve effective control of deer numbers or protection of beavers. Potential conflicts with other aspects of NatureScot's relationship with landowners/managers were also suggested.

Issues were also raised with respect to resources – both that NatureScot does not have the resources to administer an extended muirburn licensing scheme, and that it must be given additional resources to do so.

Do you agree that there should be a ban on muirburn on peatland unless it is done under licence as part of a habitat restoration programme approved by NatureScot? (Question 20)

Definition of peatland

Points raised included that there is a lack of clarity around the definition of peatland, with an associated risk that muirburn practitioners could be penalised for acting on the basis of their own understanding.

It was also suggested that, if all muirburn is to be prohibited unless a licence has been granted, a specific prohibition on burning on peatland appears unnecessary. Protecting a particular category of land within the licensing regime was seen as a more flexible approach than introducing a ban that would require issues around definition to be resolved.

Defining 'habitat restoration'

Issues raised with respect to permitting muirburn on peatland included that 'habitat restoration' should be clearly defined to stop grouse moors being considered as a restored habitat and prevent muirburn that is intended to maximise grouse numbers.

It was also suggested that the text should be amended to allow for 'sustaining habitat' in addition to 'habitat restoration management' in order to provide flexibility for conservation-orientated burning.

Other than for habitat restoration, public safety (e.g. fire prevention), and research, are there any other purposes for which you think muirburn on peatland should be permitted? (Question 21)

One answer to the question on other purposes for which muirburn on peatland should be permitted was to encourage young grass and heather for summer grazing for livestock.

With respect to the question as it was posed, other respondents noted that they would only support muirburn when there is a risk to human health, public safety, or conservation, and there was a call to explicitly exclude cultivation of land for hunting.

With respect to allowing muirburn for research it was noted that there is no indication of the type of activities that could be permitted. Further suggestions included that the licensing authority should review research licence applications to ensure the scientific merits of the work proposed and devise a mechanism to evaluate the outputs and quality of each research project.